Slashdot Mirror
New Video Shows Shot Down Drone Hovered For Only 22 Seconds
AmiMoJo writes: The saga of the drone shot down in Kentucky got a little bit longer today. A new video from the drone shot down by William Merideth shows that it only hovered over his property for 22 seconds, and was not "peeping". The video shows the drone hovering at altitude and surveying the area before falling out of the sky. Although the video jumps around a little, the drone's owner claims that it was not edited. The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
While Dueling Banjos was playing in the background?
22 seconds is quite a long time to hover over private property. It is legal to shoot firearms in my neighborhood - I would have shot it down too.
22 seconds? So the shooter was already outside in his own backyard with an appropriately loaded shotgun* just waiting for any old drone he had never seen to come by at random??
More likely scenario: Sure, on the FINAL FLIGHT over this guy's house the drone operator got 22 seconds. It was the repeated previous flights that almost certainly had to have happened that the drone operators don't want to talk about because it doesn't make them look good.
* For the ignorati, no self-respecting pro-gun redneck would keep a shotgun for personal protection loaded with #8 or #9 bird shot. If he was so wanting to shoot people as he is made out to be, there would be buckshot or even slugs in that shotgun. Hence, he was able to unload & reload in that 22 seconds... apparently.
The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a paedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire.
Okay. This was in Kentucky, so I can imagine 2 out of those 3 as possibilities.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
He was arrested for first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. Probably for using a firearm to vandalize private property. When you vandalize someone's stuff, you don't just get to reimburse them and everyone walks away. There are almost always criminal charges involved.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Most of that was link latency and artifacts caused by poor encoding. This looks like it was recorded at a remote location, presumably the launch location. The video recorded on the drone would be of much higher quality.
Source: 7 years developing digital/IP cameras used in covert surveillance.
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The criminal endangerment is most likely for discharging a firearm within city limits. These statues make no exceptions for firing upward with birdshot, they draw a line and say you can't fire a weapon in city unless you are at an approved firing range. It wouldn't have mattered if he was trying to shoot crows or rats, they still would have charged him. It's in everyone's interest to prevent the firing of guns in cities.
He'll be sued for reimbursement within small claims court. Given that his gunfire was illegal to begin with the drone owner will likely win.
You are wrong. You have complete rights to the airspace above your property. But via federal law, planes and other air travel have been given an explicit right-of-way because the value of having the industry far exceeds the imposition on you from having air traffic overhead.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Then you're a racist idiot.
There are plenty of open spaces where a hobbyist can go to fly their drone without bothering people. Pick any county in the country and do some quick searching and you will find an amateur RC plane group that will hold regular meetings and events. Some areas even have a field designated for amateur flights so that no one interferes with regular flight patterns if they happen to stray above 500 ft.
End of the day, you wouldn't send an RC car out into public places with a video camera attached and expect it to come back unmolested, why would you think a drone is any safer?
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Drone operators view spying on other people as a civil liberty, and if you complain, you're some sort of evil bastard.
Go read some drone forums. You'll see every manner of justification for being a perverted peeping Tom.
Yes, and then suggest drone registration and watch as they go "But...but...but...my PRIVACY!?!"
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Arrant bullshit.
The asshole that flew the drone into someone's property was the criminal.
The 'air' over your backyard party, or looking into your bedroom window, is NOT public space, and you do not know what your are talking about.
You believe that you have a right to spy on your neighbors with a drone? You're delusional. Anyone can fly anything into0 your backyard and just hover there and evesdrop? Where does this way of thinking even come from. You are out of your mind.
22 seconds to go into the house, get your shotgun, come back out and shoot down the drone? No way. He had the shotgun ready. Which means this isn't the first time Douchey McDronePilot had buzzed this guy's backyard. Ooooh, 22 seconds *this* time. But what about the minutes and hours before that? Hmmm?
It might not be that straightforward. Just as using cameras in public places is legal, there are lots of places where public toplessness by both genders is also legal, with the caveat that the toplessness is not for prurient purposes. It already may not be illegal to have incidental nudity caught on camera in public places. Now, if the subject is where they have a reasonable right to privacy then the operator of the camera might be committing voyeurism, which is already illegal, or if the subject exposes themselves in a public place with prurient intent then the subject may be breaking the law. I suspect that in cases where a minor is recorded unclothed, even where the minor is uncovered for prurient purposes, where that minor has a reasonable expectation of privacy, that the charge will be voyeurism against the camera operator.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I heard about the kidnapping, but I was unaware of the ISIS terrorists raping the kids.
If my information is out of date, then I'm sorry for spreading stale, incorrect information.
Even if that is true, I will make two nit-picky corrections:
ISIS IS THE PEDOPHILE ARMY.
ISIS, or at least the part of it that rapes children, would now be one of at least two "pedophile armies." Using the term "THE" makes me think "What about Boko Haram, don't they count?"
ALL MUSLIM NUTJOBS ARE IN IT FOR THE CHILD RAPING
Assuming you are just talking about the nut-jobs and are not smearing all Muslims,* I still say this is false because most of the nut-jobs are in it for other reasons (ditto nut-jobs of other religions and atheist and agnostic nut-jobs). Even most of those who are just looking for a quick martyrdom-trip-to-"paradise with 72 virgins" aren't looking for the prepubescent kids that a true pedophile dreams about.
*If you are smearing all Muslims, well, there's no point in discussing this further, so please don't.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As someone who delivers video systems and RF downlinks for drones and helicopters I see four kinds of artifacts in that video:
1) Yes, rolling shutter artifacts appear to be there, but they're very minor (i.e. distortion in the young man's face in the lower left of the first few frames). It appears that the camera is mounted on a gyro stabilized platform. Overall, I suspect that this may even be a full-frame chip, and what appear to be rolling shutter artifacts are actually due to the high compression. Rolling shutter artifacts are very, very annoying and not tolerated well by most users so rolling shutter video chips are going out of style.
2) Lost/corrupted packets. I'm guessing that this is a VOIP system using UDP packets, and you can see some glitches in rows of pixels, like at 0:13 above the horizon to the left. These are often accompanied by 3) and seem to be a predecessor of 4).
3) Compression artifacts. This is probably MPEG-4 of some kind, and you can see the bit rate is rather low because of the blockiness and persistence of bad blocks caused by lost/corrupted packets. The bit rate is low most likely because the RF link won't support a higher one...
4) Lost Link artifacts. These are the most obvious ones, and run from brief ones less than a frame long, which produce the top-down partial-screen "wipes" to ones that last several frames or even several seconds, which look like full-frame "wipe" edits. These are almost certainly caused by loss of radio link from the drone to the ground. The recording software isn't substituting blank pixels or frames, it's just picking up where it left off when it gets the video stream back. Aesthetically, it's probably the best way to go, but if you're collecting something you expect may need to be forensic evidence, it does inconveniently make the video look like it's been edited.
If I were called in to testify on this video clip, I'd say my opinion is that the wipes are caused solely by loss of link, but the video could have purposefully been edited to appear that way.
As for why it jumps so much? His RF Link sucks. Either he's not orienting his antennas correctly (calibrate your magnetometers if you're using gimbaled antennas! Your fixed omnis should stay vertical!) or he's using very high gain omnis at too short a range, or both. Higher gain omnis have deeper nulls at zenith and nadir. (It may seem tempting to the layman, but you don't point your ground station omni at the aircraft - if you're gonna actively aim the antenna, then it should stay perpendicular to your drone.) Finally, he's probably operating in the 2.5GHz ISM band, which in a suburban area like that is probably quite noisy with WiFi and microwave oven interference. Switch to a 5GHz system, it may still be noisy, but at least you don't have all that energy from a magnetron in every home and business spewing radiation intended for hot pockets, leftover mac and cheese, and that fish somebody brings every day for lunch.
I can see the fnords!
Well, that is not actually correct -
"In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground."
Source:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Dummies Article on the Topic:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/...
Google Search With Many Articles:
https://www.google.com/search?...
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
"The shooter says he did not know if the drone was being operated by a pedophile, criminal or ISIS terrorist before he opened fire."
So drug dealer was too outlandish a claim? For fuck's sake, of all the possible boogeymen, a friggin' ISIS TERRORIST??? If this bullshit argument gets to stand, I don't even want to know just how fucked up this country and its inhabitants is.
(for those that don't understand what I am referring to, you might want to read up on the Four horsemen of the infocalypse. Yes, this is not "on the internet", but he really nearly assembled all the straw men used there. Only the drug lord is missing)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Trespassing is also illegal, and since the drone's owner was not present to confront regarding the trespassing, the act of downing the drone may not be a problem, even if the means by which it was downed is.
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Except that it is not clear if overflying property at low altitudes is trespassing; it's been established a property owner does not have exclusive control over the airspace above their property.
But the public navigateable public airspace doesn't start until 500'. And air planes aren't allowed below 1000 feet over populated areas.
You are right of course that its well established we don't have exclusive control over the airspace out into the jetstream or anything, but what about at 10', 50', 100', 200' ...400' ? Who has the airspace rights there?
So its not clear to me at all that they have the right to fly them over other peoples property at that height. None of the regular aircraft exemptions apply since they are for higher altitudes.
This drone was obviously (from the video) well below that. (And even the owner is only claiming 200' which seems plausible from the video... but I think it was somewhat lower.)
Actually, it's the Lord's Resistance Army (a Christian terrorist group) that currently holds the title for kidnapping and raping pre-teen and young teens in Africa. Boo Haram is just a wannabe in comparison.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
What does all of this say - the Supreme Court has ruled you own at least 83 feet above your property. So no, all airspace is definitely not public. Hopefully this will lead towards a new ruling which will legal define how much airspace you own; opposed to it being left in a legal grey area for heights between 83 feet and 500 feet.
This reminds me of ancient maritime law and how they defined 'territorial waters'. Today it's 12 nautical miles. Back in the 18th Century it was 3 miles. For several centuries it amounted to being the range of common ground-based cannon-shot. Basically, if they could shoot at you from shore, you were within their territorial waters.
It seems as good of a standard as any - if you can hit the drone with a standard 12 gauge using normal shot that's small enough to fall 'harmlessly' back to earth, then the drone is too low.
Depending on whether people pull the goose guns out, this seems
At 425 m/s, if it wasn't for atmosphere it'd make it out 9k feet. As is, air resistance is critical, and while I can get plenty of 'how far', 'how high' is tougher, but I'm getting a practical range of about 80-120 feet.
Reasonable enough.
I don't read AC A human right
It could be against the law in some jurisdictions, but anywhere in the US, it is not. FAA guidelines keep varying, the recent guideline is 10 feet. (Think of how a helicopter can go over your house, and you wouldnt bad an eyelid (well, in LA and places where helicopters are common sight atleast))
Yes, the video might have run for 22 seconds, but that doesn't mean the drone wasn't already over the backyard, and 22 seconds is kinda long.
To me the owner of the drone should just cut his losses and leave it at that, as IMHO he shouldn't have flown/hoovered over someoneelses property.. Lesson learned the hard way.. Because you own a drone doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whereever you want.. To me the property owner was full in his rights to down the drone (shooting it with a shotgun might not have been the safest way for surrounding people)..
.... a white van with tinted windows so you don't know what's going on inside. Now let's say it does that repeatedly as is certainly the case with the drone.
What would you do?
Call the police? Confront the van and its occupants? Shoot at it?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Fly over, grab raw footage, extract juicy pics to jpgs.
It took that long? this means this bozo had a loaded gun next to him (around his kids) and was able to pick it up , sight it in , and discharge his firearm (around his kids) rather quickly. Do not fly news helicopters anywhere near this dude. cue: dueling banjos
~corporate tool, but employed~
Anyone got a mirror?